It is permissive of making money off the software, not of changing the
license terms to be more restrictive (if you aren't the full owner).


On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Aimee Maree <aimee@???> wrote:

> Yeah ummm the code that Bank of America use must REMAIN GPL please point
> out a permissive license that allows that to occur? Don't you remember what
> your parents said about permissive behaviour ;) seriously though if you
> like when I arrive back from a long haul flight I will take the time to
> explain in detail. Until then please point out a license for me cheers
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Dec 2013, at 10:06 pm, "Luke-Jr" <luke@???> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 5:56:35 AM Aimee Maree wrote:
> >> GPL was created to maintain freedom of users and developers I have run
> and
> >> been apart of many successful GPL projects. It protects developers it
> >> means that company X can't take your script put it into I don't know the
> >> bank if America and then not give you any credit or money. GPL is the
> best
> >> defence we have to protect positive code that we don't want mister X or
> Y
> >> to make a profit from... I can explain legalities across jurisdictions
> etc
> >> if you want but I think the above explains why it is a good choice.
> >
> > No, you have the GPL and free software entirely wrong. The GPL in fact
> > *protects* the right of the Bank of America to incorporate the code into
> their
> > stuff without giving you any money (or notable credit). It also
> guarantees
> > that anyone can make a profit off the code.
> >
> > Free software and the GPL were designed to prevent someone from adding
> > *restrictions* (including restrictions like the "non-commercial" one you
> seem
> > to want).
> >
> > Luke
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>